424 P.3d 416
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- A Gilbert prosecutor timely filed a notice of change of judge as a matter of right under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2, including the required attorney avowals.
- Defense counsel objected, asserting the notice was filed for an improper purpose and requested an evidentiary hearing and discovery into the prosecutor’s history of notices.
- The originally assigned judge transferred the matter to the presiding municipal judge, who scheduled an evidentiary hearing to probe the reasons for the notice.
- The prosecutor sought special-action review in superior court to block the hearing; the superior court accepted jurisdiction but denied relief, concluding a presiding judge may determine whether a notice was improper.
- The prosecutor then petitioned this Court for special action relief, arguing Rule 10.2 permits immediate reassignment when a timely notice with required avowals is filed and precludes inquiry into motives.
- The Court held that Rule 10.2 preserves the summary, automatic reassignment process and that inquiries into a filer’s reasons are inappropriate; alleged abuses should be addressed through professional-discipline channels or other procedures set by the Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may hold an evidentiary hearing to probe reasons behind a timely Rule 10.2 peremptory change of judge notice | A timely notice with required avowals triggers immediate reassignment; courts may not inquire into motives | A court may inquire and hold a hearing when defense claims the notice was filed for improper purpose or abuse | The court held courts cannot inquire beyond the Rule 10.2 avowals; upon a timely, complete notice the presiding judge must immediately reassign the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 99 (1986) (describing the historical summary and automatic nature of peremptory change)
- Bergeron ex rel. Perez v. O'Neil, 205 Ariz. 640 (App. 2003) (trial court lacks inherent authority to evaluate propriety of Rule 10.2 notices; professional-discipline remedies available)
- State v. Ingram, 239 Ariz. 228 (App. 2016) (challenge to denial of a Rule 10.2 notice is appropriately brought by special action)
- State v. Kalauli, 243 Ariz. 521 (App. 2018) (appellate jurisdiction considerations for special-action review of Rule 10.2 matters)
- Anonymous v. Superior Court, 14 Ariz. App. 502 (1971) (policy favoring peremptory change to avoid embarrassment and bitterness when bias allegations would otherwise be detailed)